Addiction is offensive to God?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why aren't you open to being wrong on this one?  

Maybe you see it differently, but to me, not wanting to argue on the internet is not the same as not being open to being wrong. 

I've had discussions in the past with Pogi where he was very emotionally invested in a topic that we didn't see eye to eye on, and I've seen him have these kinds of discussions with other posters, and it never ends well.  I'd rather not go down the road.

There are plenty of other posters who I would choose not to have a lengthy discussion on a topic that we don't agree on as well, for the same reasons.  It doesn't have anything to do with my personal feelings towards that poster or my view of the value of their posts.  I just know me, and know my past experiences with them in a similar situation, and choose peace over back and forth arguing about who is actually right.

Edited October 9, 2023 by bluebell

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I'm a little unsure what you are asking.

If you mean would I approach President Nelson's words differently with a member vs. non-member, I mean, naturally. A non-member is very unlikely to bring them up. And I would not even bring them up to a believing Latter-day Saint. If that person brought them up I would explore their response and whether they find it helpful. If they told me they were hurt by his words, I might explore whether there was a different way to interpret them than the way that was hurtful. 

If you mean is my approach to President Nelson's words here different than treatment, no. My overall approach to addictions and compulsive behaviors is fully compatible with how I understood President Nelson's words.

If your question was something else, I'd be happy to answer any clarification. 

Thank you.  You clarified it for me.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

we always have a choice in how we respond and choose to move forward, don't we

After my recent experience with fibromyalgia induced brain fog, I actually wonder about this.  I am still shocked about the way it impacts my thought process.  It is actually painful, as in a headache and more so, to try and think past a superficial level.  I was not capable of initiating behaviour beyond what I already had a habit of doing or even thinking about changing my behaviour or ‘what comes next’ on occasion.  Thankfully it doesn’t last very long for me, but I wonder if there are some conditions that impede someone even worse and constantly.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Calm

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

After my recent experience with fibromyalgia induced brain fog, I actually wonder about this.  I am still shocked about the way it impacts my thought process.  It is actually painful, as in a headache and more so, to try and think past a superficial level.  I was not capable of initiating behaviour beyond what I already had a habit of doing or even thinking about changing my behaviour or ‘what comes next’ on occasion.  Thankfully it doesn’t last very long for me, but I wonder if there are some conditions that impede someone even worse and constantly.

I think there absolutely are conditions that impede ability to act in particular ways. Generally, I see freedom as a continuum. IN every decision there is an element of (genetic, environmental, biological, etc.) determination and an element of free will. Some decisions are much more (entirely?) determined and others much more (entirely?) freely chosen. I believe that Christ's atonement enables Him to perfectly understand the degree of each, and only hold me accountable for the portion that is in my control.

Ultimately, my personal view is that only decision where we truly have agency is our ability to choose to soften ourselves to the influence of the Holy Ghost and accept Christ's atonement. Most of the time, I can strive (fight) to act in Harmony with his will. But to me, "strive" implies that I will not always, or even most times, be successful. 

So, even when I may act in a way that is relatively determined, I still retain an element of agency. Not necessarily in that action itself, but in whether I seek repentance afterward or harden myself in justification. Whether I acknowledge my reliance upon Christ or deny the gift of His atonement.

Personally, this keen awareness that I don't know the degree of determination and freedom in my own life, let alone anyone else's, helps me avoid falling into a trap of judging others.

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Personally, this keen awareness that I don't know the degree of determination and freedom in my own life, let alone anyone else's, helps me avoid falling into a trap of judging others.

It is becoming much harder for me to do so, at least once past the initial irritation or anger.  I used to think it was more an ignorance issue, people’s experiences prevented them from trusting, etc., which was pretty easy to not judge except in cases where I thought they had to have at least once known, but now experiencing actual impediment of thought even though I know very well what is going on and what I should be doing until the brain fog rises and I am cut off from that knowledge or unable to make a choice (I am trying to streamline much of my life to remove the need to make decisions because of this limitation).  The brain is really weird.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Calm

[CA Steve]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Thankfully it doesn’t last very long for me, but I wonder if there are some conditions that impede someone even worse and constantly.

Having watched the havoc glioblastoma wrecked on my late wife and having watched a close relative descend into schizophrenia in their late 20's, I am not convinced at all that we really have that much choice in how we respond.

[Damien the Leper]

Not sure if this was brought up. If God gets offended, then maybe he should read Mr. Bednar's article on not being offended. If God is offended, then that is His choice, and He has given up power to His "offender". Perhaps at worst, Mr. Nelson is ignorantly and unjustifiably projecting an emotional falsehood onto God. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Not sure if this was brought up. If God gets offended, then maybe he should read Mr. Bednar's article on not being offended. If God is offended, then that is His choice, and He has given up power to His "offender". Perhaps at worst, Mr. Nelson is ignorantly and unjustifiably projecting an emotional falsehood onto God. 

That was brought up but I don't remember which thread.  It was discussed how Pres. Nelson seemed to be using scriptural language when using the word "offend" since that is how it is often described in the scriptures when speaking of sinning.

Someone (I don't remember who it was) then looked up the definition of the word "offend" in a 1800s dictionary (because one of the verses we were talking about was in section 59 in the Doctrine in Covenants).  We learned that the definition has changed somewhat from that era.  Where it used to most commonly mean "displeased" it's morphed into signifying annoyance or resentment at a perceived slight today.

In the same conversation, someone else brought up how scripturally, offend was probably most often used in the scriptures because sinners were thought of as offenders in the legal "justice being harmed" sense, because when we sin we break spiritual laws the same way offenders are those who have broken laws in our justice system.

 

[Peacefully]

The man is 99. I hope I can put a coherent sentence together if I make it to that age:) 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Having watched the havoc glioblastoma wrecked on my late wife and having watched a close relative descend into schizophrenia in their late 20's, I am not convinced at all that we really have that much choice in how we respond.

Same with my mom and dementia.  A woman who once was fastidious at times ensuring she only ate healthy food was refusing salads and nutritious soups and eating fried foods and white bread and inhaling chocolate; who exercised in the middle of the night if she couldn’t do it during the day, who would take a steamed potato after breakfast and go out and walk till evening was suddenly refusing to walk down the hall…and lying about it all to me when she probably had never lied before in her life.  That life was not a choice by my mother.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Thank you.  You clarified it for me.

In reading my response, I did want to clarify one thing. When in say my approach is congruent with how I interpret President Nelson's comments, I don't mean that I would phrase things exactly like he did or employ a primarily spiritual approach.  I just mean that the way I treat addiction and compulsive behavior focuses on disrupting behavioral patterns and meeting nonnegotiable needs in a healthy and proactive way.  Not spiritual actions unless unmet spiritual needs are driving a compulsive behavior.*  I don't ever use religion or spirituality except in asking a client how it impacts their life and the situation we are working on. If they want to incorporate religion/spirituality (and my LDS clients are by no means the only ones who do), I am comfortable exploring with them how religion and spirituality help them or contribute to their presenting concern. The answer is usually both at the same time. 

I do focus a lot on valued action, which requires exploring what clients' values are, but this is not really a religious process. In fact, one of the steps in values exploration work is identifying the values we have had imposed on us or been pressured to live up to.  We then work to help the client let go of those values if they are not personally valued by the client. 

 

*For example loneliness and social isolation drives a lot of addictive behavior. The action I would encourage here is not praying or reading scriptures, but developing meaningful and authentic interpersonal relationships. If a person identifies unmet needs around physical well-being, we might work on developing habits of exercise, proper nutrition, and good sleep. The only time I would consider encouraging religious/spiritual actions is if the person identifies something like a lack of desired connection to a higher power or neglect of their spiritual well-being as a trigger for craving the addictive behavior.  In that case we might identify private or public religious/spiritual actions they can take to meet that need. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by kllindley

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding this:

Step 4.  Searching and fearless moral inventory.   This is why we do it, to figure out exactly what the real problem is, where it started, what it is and what to do about it. 

When I was young, the MIA theme one year was D&C 130:20-21

We have to diagnose what is wrong in each individual case to fix what is wrong in each individual case, based on the discovered cause and effect, and relevant remedy.  There is nothing wrong with my small pox vaccination, or my polio vaccination, nor my periodic dental treatments, but they don't help with COVID 19 and variants.  It also happens that in addiction circles "medicating" is a common euphemism for acting out that either provides a feeling or blocks out some pain or seems to fill some void, but at an increasingly chaotic cost to life and relationships.  If we miss the diagnosis, we can also miss the correct solution.  I do agree with you and respect your opinions and expertise.   However,  recovery literature is chock full of that sort of self-discovery with regard to ultimate causes and successful solutions that lead to change and healing.  The object of addiction is not an end in itself, but a means to filling some other void.  Addicts are caught in their own misdiagnosis and inappropriate self-treatment.  And the searching and fearless 4th Step inventory is a means to discover how and why and when, and exactly what to do about it.  It should not be about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  

I should note that I was simplifying and obfuscating details on purpose and probably could have given at least a vague example of what I meant by this. It would have fit in the category of porn users who feel absolutely horrible because they think they're committing the 3rd worse sin on the sin list because they look at the same vanilla porn they have been before they knew what the word porn meant very infrequently for 5-ish minute sessions in non-compromising places or times to do so. Minus the guilt and shame, it had no real effect on their everyday functioning. That's just not an addiction...it's a bad habit. It can absolutely have overlaps in treatment methods, including the 4th step. The problem wasn't that there wasn't means to take accountability and introspect baked into the addiction recovery programs. The problem was that these programs aren't meant for people with a bad habit who just need to do a couple simple things to start to course correct. Instead it reinforced that their bad habit was equivalent to someone who was seriously out of control or needed to have heavy consistent resources to fix. So a tool that for some can be a shame reducer became a shame enforcer. Plus step 4 has its own problems that people struggle with. Many repeat just focusing on their most obvious behaviors before they dive into why they're doing those behaviors and what those behaviors mean.

Addicts often misdiagnose or try poor forms of self-treatment, that's true. But misdiagnosing a non-addict as one, can have its own problems. I have another client who assumed they also had a porn problem...both ecclesiastical leaders and therapists alike basically ignored the porn (including me). The reason was simple: that was just a manifestation of really serious trauma responses from cptsd. If they'd focused on the porn, treatment would have been misdirected and it again could have inadvertently reinforced some of their denial... which was making all their other symptoms worse....which would have probably increased the porn. There was no way they could or should have done step 4 as part of their treatment plan. The thought of it literally makes me shudder. Again, it could have easily been misdiagnosed as a porn addiction if the right people hadn't been in their lives and it would have been seriously missing the boat for proper treatment and care.

I don't doubt that there are porn/sex addicts who've been misdiagnosed. But it can absolutely happen the other way around. And your analogy still works. You can't inoculate against covid with a polio vaccine or vice versa. You can't treat a viral infection with antibiotics. And you shouldn't treat all problems with compulsive behaviors with the 12-step programs.

11 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

That is exactly the point of Bradshaw's book, to distinguish between toxic shame, and healthy shame.

 

Sounds like a cool book  

With luv,

BD

Edited October 9, 2023 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I should note that I was simplifying and obfuscating details on purpose and probably could have given at least a vague example of what I meant by this. It would have fit in the category of porn users who feel absolutely horrible because they think they're committing the 3rd worse sin on the sin list because they look at the same vanilla porn they have been before they knew what the word porn meant very infrequently for 5-ish minute sessions in non-compromising places or times to do so. Minus the guilt and shame, it had no real effect on their everyday functioning. That's just not an addiction...it's a bad habit. It can absolutely have overlaps in treatment methods, including the 4th step. The problem wasn't that there wasn't means to take accountability and introspect baked into the addiction recovery programs. The problem was that these programs aren't meant for people with a bad habit who just need to do a couple simple things to start to course correct. Instead it reinforced that their bad habit was equivalent to someone who was seriously out of control or needed to have heavy consistent resources to fix. So a tool that for some can be a shame reducer became a shame enforcer. Plus step 4 has its own problems that people struggle with. Many repeat just focusing on their most obvious behaviors before they dive into why they're doing those behaviors and what those behaviors mean.

Addicts often misdiagnose or try poor forms of self-treatment, that's true. But misdiagnosing a non-addict as one, can have its own problems. I have another client who assumed they also had a porn problem...both ecclesiastical leaders and therapists alike basically ignored the porn (including me). The reason was simple: that was just a manifestation of really serious trauma responses from cptsd. If they'd focused on the porn, treatment would have been misdirected and it again could have inadvertently reinforced some of their denial... which was making all their other symptoms worse....which would have probably increased the porn. There was no way they could or should have done step 4 as part of their treatment plan. The thought of it literally makes me shudder. Again, it could have easily been misdiagnosed as a porn addiction if the right people hadn't been in their lives and it would have been seriously missing the boat for proper treatment and care.

I don't doubt that there are porn/sex addicts who've been misdiagnosed. But it can absolutely happen the other way around. And your analogy still works. You can't inoculate against covid with a polio vaccine or vice versa. You can't treat a viral infection with antibiotics. And you shouldn't treat all problems with compulsive behaviors with the 12-step programs.

Sounds like a cool book  

With luv,

BD

I've been trying to say this in other posts! But I didn't have the ability as well as you, thank you! 

Sidenote BD, do couples that have issues with feeling in the mood for sex, helped by viewing a little vanilla porn? And if so what about them, particularly LDS or other very strict religions' members? Specifically women. And what if this then starts that cycle of shame and guilt, hopefully not. 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

In reading my response, I did want to clarify one thing. When in say my approach is congruent with how I interpret President Nelson's comments, I don't mean that I would phrase things exactly like he did or employ a primarily spiritual approach.  I just mean that the way I treat addiction and compulsive behavior focuses on disrupting behavioral patterns and meeting nonnegotiable needs in a healthy and proactive way.  Not spiritual actions unless unmet spiritual needs are driving a compulsive behavior.*  I don't ever use religion or spirituality except in asking a client how it impacts their life and the situation we are working on. If they want to incorporate religion/spirituality (and my LDS clients are by no means the only ones who do), I am comfortable exploring with them how religion and spirituality help them or contribute to their presenting concern. The answer is usually both at the same time. 

I do focus a lot on valued action, which requires exploring what clients' values are, but this is not really a religious process. In fact, one of the steps in values exploration work is identifying the values we have had imposed on us or been pressured to live up to.  We then work to help the client let go of those values if they are not personally valued by the client. 

 

*For example loneliness and social isolation drives a lot of addictive behavior. The action I would encourage here is not praying or reading scriptures, but developing meaningful and authentic interpersonal relationships. If a person identifies unmet needs around physical well-being, we might work on developing habits of exercise, proper nutrition, and good sleep. The only time I would consider encouraging religious/spiritual actions is if the person identifies something like a lack of desired connection to a higher power or neglect of their spiritual well-being as a trigger for craving the addictive behavior.  In that case we might identify private or public religious/spiritual actions they can take to meet that need. 

I think some people might be surprised as just how "secularly sound" our religion can be, when our means of spirituality entail so many "temporal" principles and approaches that help people avoid and recover from addiction by fostering personal meaning, purpose, connections, etc. in the several areas of self-reliance Word of Wisdom, Gathering, Work, "respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities," etc.).

Spirituality in Clinical Practice (apa.org)

Religious faith and spirituality may help people recover from substance abuse (apa.org)

 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Sidenote BD, do couples that have issues with feeling in the mood for sex, helped by viewing a little vanilla porn? And if so what about them, particularly LDS or other very strict religions' members? Specifically women. And what if this then starts that cycle of shame and guilt, hopefully not. 

Sometimes and it depends your definition of porn. Usually the ones I'm thinking of lean towards "soft core" stuff like steamy romance novels or popular shows. But it's usually not that helpful, honestly. Particularly for more religious folks who it can conflict with their values. That just ends up complicating and distancing themselves from their sexuality as something wrong and not really them. 

Usually it has more to do with having space and time to relax, connect, and cater more to female sexuality rather than trying to play catch-up to male oriented sexuality. That usually leads to more sustainable fixes even if it takes a little more work to get there. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Amulek]

On 10/7/2023 at 5:15 PM, Calm said:

But you have made a commitment not to drink.  What of those who take their first drink at the family dinner table or those who are taken after work by friends to celebrate a promotion and it’s their first drink because they wisely waited until they thought their brain wouldn’t be impacted significantly, having waited till it was fully developed and they were planning on having only a small drink?  How are either of those a bad choice?

I don't know that I would characterize attempts to engage in drinking responsibly as being a bad choice, but it is still a choice. And I do think there should be some degree of responsibility / accountability for having freely made that choice.  

 

[pogi]

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

The discrepancy I'm talking about is in the neuroimaging.

What discrepancies are you talking about?  Dr. Hilton's research, which has been duplicated many times by others shows that the changes in the brain are identical to substance addictions.   Do you have a reference that contradicts his findings of changes to the prefrontal cortex, shrinking of the amygdala?

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

There are without question, similarities in substance addictions and compulsive behaviors. The bigger question is are those similarities really at the root of what substance addiction is? Are there meaningful ways where the differences in neuroimaging research between the two might signal a deeper distinction between the two?

https://leadingsaints.org/practical-steps-in-overcoming-pornography/

I'm not sure what differences in neuroimaging you are talking about.  I can't find anything in your link which addresses this. 

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

There is without question measurable changes to the brain in compulsive behaviors and substance addiction. The bigger question is whether those changes actually support a disease model of addiction. 

https:/3hvY/youtu.be/T–8C14

A number of researchers (especially outside the US) believe those changes are not substantially different from the changes we see in other learning, including religiosity, love, and learning an instrument. 

https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/why-addiction-isnt-disease-instead-result-deep-learning

We don't see the same harmful biological changes/deficits in the prefrontal cortex and shrinking of the amygdala that we see in addiction in "other learning, including religiosity, love, and learning an instrument".   I'm not sure where they are coming from with that, but it is a false statement.  They use control groups comparing addicts with non-addicts and their brains are not the same as those learning an instrument or are religious. 

The video link doesn't work.  The second link argues that it can't be a disease because of neuroplasticity where the brain can rewire and heal itself over time and with implementation of new behaviors.  From the link:

Quote

Biological causes, she says, are appealing because they don't ask us to question our social arrangements. 

That simply isn't true, I don't know of anyone who sees addiction as a disease who doesn't question social arrangements etc. as contributing factors that need to be addressed.  There is clearly a biological impairment of the brain in addiction, where social factors play a role.    How is that different from other diseases like type II diabetes, where social factors and life choices negatively change and impact biology?  No one tells a diabetic that "social arrangements" and addressing lifestyle habits like diet and exercise don't need to be addressed.  In fact, changing those habits can change our biology and some diseases can be cured with life-style changes.  So, why should addiction be viewed differently?   Some of the biological changes to the brain from addiction can last a life-time, even after someone stops using the drug. 

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

There is a serious bias on American addiction research to favor a disease model.  Our medical system requires a diagnosis to recieve treatment and have it paid for by insurance. That makes the addiction treatment industry very motivated to have a disease to treat. Those who try to research other models find they are cut out of funding. 

Or, those researchers arguing that it is not a disease have unfounded theories which are not supported by the preponderance of evidence, therefore they are not funded, like those addressed above.   I honestly haven't heard one good argument as to why addiction should not be considered a disease.   How is it different?   

The fact is, the consensus of the medical community, associations, and research agrees that addiction is a disease, despite conspiracy theories attempting to downplay that consensus. 

 The Scientific Reasons Addiction Is Called A Disease (addictiongroup.org)

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by pogi

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

What discrepancies are you talking about?  Dr. Hilton's research, which has been duplicated many times by others shows that the changes in the brain are identical to substance addictions.   Do you have a reference that contradicts his findings of changes to the prefrontal cortex, shrinking of the amygdala?

I'm not sure what differences in neuroimaging you are talking about.  I can't find anything in your link which addresses this. 

We don't see the same harmful biological changes/deficits in the prefrontal cortex and shrinking of the amygdala that we see in addiction in "other learning, including religiosity, love, and learning an instrument".   I'm not sure where they are coming from with that, but it is a false statement.  They use control groups comparing addicts with non-addicts and their brains are not the same as those learning an instrument or are religious. 

The video link doesn't work.  The second link argues that it can't be a disease because of neuroplasticity where the brain can rewire and heal itself over time and with implementation of new behaviors.  From the link:

That simply isn't true, I don't know of anyone who sees addiction as a disease who doesn't question social arrangements etc. as contributing factors that need to be addressed.  There is clearly a biological impairment of the brain in addiction, where social factors play a role.    How is that different from other diseases like type II diabetes, where social factors and life choices negatively change and impact biology?  No one tells a diabetic that "social arrangements" and addressing lifestyle habits like diet and exercise don't need to be addressed.  In fact, changing those habits can change our biology and some diseases can be cured with life-style changes.  So, why should addiction be viewed differently?   Some of the biological changes to the brain from addiction can last a life-time, even after someone stops using the drug. 

Or, those arguing that it is not a disease have poor arguments, like those addressed above.   I honestly haven't heard one good argument as to why addiction should not be considered a disease.   How is it different?   

The fact is, the consensus of the medical community, associations, and research agrees that addiction is a disease, despite conspiracy theories attempting to downplay that consensus. 

 The Scientific Reasons Addiction Is Called A Disease (addictiongroup.org)

 

Sounds like you've made up your mind. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intentions. 

[MorningStar]

I think the whole point of this talk is to keep the commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If we are putting other things before God, we should be working to change that. 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I think the whole point of this talk is to keep the commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If we are putting other things before God, we should be working to change that. 

And that includes diseases, which in the instance of the OP, includes those which involve obsessions. That is why Christ heals them. I also think that is why He encourages their avoidance where agency is robbed and approves our efforts based in science.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

I think the whole point of this talk is to keep the commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If we are putting other things before God, we should be working to change that. 

I don't disagree with that general sentiment.  It is the generalization that addicts are placing another God before Him that is problematic for me.  It feels very dismissive of my experience and of so many other addicts trying to overcome their addiction and probably spend more time on their knees and turn to God more than the average person in their day-to-day lives as they seek solace, healing and direction.  To make the general statement that God is offended at addiction because addicts turn to their addiction over God for solace just feels dismissive of the actual experience and spiritual devotion of most addicts who are religious and spiritually based and turn to Him for healing.    It saddens me for those who will hear this talk and are in the grips of addiction and are giving their 100% everything to God to try and overcome it but still fall short.   For those who are shame based (most addicts - John Bradshaw argues all addicts) and who take every word of prophets to heart - this will cause more harm than good.   They will believe that God is offended because they are not turning to Him enough, or are not devoted to God enough, etc.  Any reason to blame themselves and beat themselves up, they will take...that just feeds the addiction unfortunately.   It will also feed a stigma about addicts that they are somehow spiritually less-than others because they choose addiction over God and worship false Gods.  That is so far from true of addicts that I know.    

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is the generalization that addicts are placing another God before Him that is problematic for me.

If we aren't talking about clinical addiction, then I think the generalization is worthwhile. 

I think we have a tendency to over-generalize a lot of behaviors as being addictions when in reality they are not - they are just bad habits - and those are situations where I think the prophet's words are meaningful. 

If others take his comments to be too strong or over-generalized as to all addicts / addictions, then I don't know how to fix that. But I honestly don't think the prophet wants people to do anything other than seek the help they need and continue to make positive changes in their lives so they can continue to grow and progress. 

 

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If we aren't talking about clinical addiction, then I think the generalization is worthwhile.  I think we have a tendency to over-generalize a lot of behaviors as being addictions when in reality they are not - they are just bad habits - and those are situations where I think the prophet's words are meaningful. 

He uses the word "addiction" and included drugs, alcohol, and other accepted clinical addictions.  

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If others take his comments to be too strong or over-generalized as to all addicts / addictions, then I don't know how to fix that.

It's nothing that needs to be or can be fixed by you.  He either misspoke by saying "addiction" instead of "bad habits", which I think is less likely, or he over-generalized and/or mischaracterized the nature of addiction and the spiritual character/faith of those inflicted by it. 

Quote

Any addiction...offends God. Why? Because your obsession becomes your god. You look to it, rather than to Him, for solace. If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need.”

 

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But I honestly don't think the prophet wants people to do anything other than seek the help they need and continue to make positive changes in their lives so they can continue to grow and progress. 

I don't disagree.  I just was hoping that we were past these types of harmful stigmas with addiction.  

Edited October 9, 2023 by pogi

[Mark Beesley]

If there are harmful stigmas attached to addiction, it is a stigma being attached by others—not the addict. Many addicts do not recognize that they are addicted to anything. At most, they believe their behaviors are simply indicative of a weak character. Even the addict who seeks help professionally sees their problem as something to be overcome by persistence. But, until there is an inward change, they will always struggle and be at risk of a relapse. In many cases the addiction persists, even if the person is not acting out, because the inner desire to satisfy the craving is ever-present. This is why we generally speak of addicts recovering, not of addicts having recovered.

I do not think I am just blowing smoke. I was an addict for 50 years. From age 16 to age 66 I was addicted to pornography and all its attendant evils. During those 50 years I graduated from High School, served a mission, married in the temple, had 6 children, served in a bishopric and Stake presidency. These behaviors were accomplished in spite of the addiction because I did the simple things the Lord suggested—daily scripture study and prayer. When I neglected these simple prescriptions, the addiction took over. In addition to the “accomplishments” above noted, during those 50 years I was excommunicated, put on probation, disfellowshipped, divorced, remarried, and lost my career.  Throughout those 50 years, I never thought of myself as an addict. I just thought I was weak, a sentiment reinforced by my first wife and a Stake President.  But I am a living testament that the Lord never ceases to love us and has the power to free us from addiction.

I sat one evening about 3 years ago reflecting on the course my life had traversed. I was at peace with the Lord, and was faithfully sealed to my wife, but I continued to be plagued by images of pornography and urges to satisfy myself. As I sat in deep reflection, I quietly cried out to the Lord, Why can’t I overcome this? I had tried to overcome my moral challenges in the past, but my “poor character” always wanted to leave a little room to store the addiction. But remember, I did not recognize it as an addiction. I was just weak. However, when I cried out to the Lord on this particular occasion, I no longer wanted to give room in my life for those behaviors, but I just could not seem to get over the hump. Why can’t I overcome this? The Lord responded.

I have heard the Lord speak to me in something other than the still small voice—which is more common—3 times in my life. Twice I was in the Temple when He had something to say to me, words of reassurance, comfort and instruction. On this third occasion, He replied to my query/plea with a love and understanding that still burns in my breast. You don’t have to overcome it, the Lord said. I overcame it for you. You just have to trust me.  In that moment it was given to me to understand what it meant to surrender to the Lord. And I did. I finally gave up. I surrendered. Finally, the Lord had a lump of clay He could work with, and He change my heart. He took the addiction away. He freed me from bondage.  

It was not until I gained this freedom that I could look back and clearly recognize that I had been suffering under the weight of an undiagnosed and unrecognized addiction. There was no way on earth I would have ever found the peace I sought, the freedom I yearned for, without the Lord’s intervention. I would have died an addict had my Savior not intervened to bring me repose. I cannot explain the spiritual mechanism by which the Lord performed this miracle in my life any more than I can explain the spiritual mechanism whereby water was transformed into wine, or the faith-filled woman was healed of a nearly lifelong issue of blood. But it was every bit a miracle. I was made free.

What we should learn from this is that without the intervention of the Lord, the best result we can hope for in treating addiction is to control the behaviors driven by the addiction. But recognize that this leaves the addict in the unenviable position of having to live with that pressure on the closet door where they have put away the addiction.  True recovery and freedom from bondage comes only when the Lord changes our hearts. And He can only do that, without trespassing on our agency, if we truly want it, holding nothing back.

So, does addiction “offend” God. Of course it does, because it holds us back from fully accepting Him as our Savior. We have said to our Savior, “Oh, I can do it without You.”  Good luck. 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Mark Beesley

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

If there are harmful stigmas attached to addiction, it is a stigma being attached by others—not the addict. Many addicts do not recognize that they are addicted to anything. At most, they believe their behaviors are simply indicative of a weak character. Even the addict who seeks help professionally sees their problem as something to be overcome by persistence. But, until there is an inward change, they will always struggle and be at risk of a relapse. In many cases the addiction persists, even if the person is not acting out, because the inner desire to satisfy the craving is ever-present. This is why we generally speak of addicts recovering, not of addicts having recovered.

I do not think I am just blowing smoke. I was an addict for 50 years. From age 16 to age 66 I was addicted to pornography and all its attendant evils. During those 50 years I graduated from High School, served a mission, married in the temple, had 6 children, served in a bishopric and Stake presidency. These behaviors were accomplished in spite of the addiction because I did the simple things the Lord suggested—daily scripture study and prayer. When I neglected these simple prescriptions, the addiction took over. In addition to the “accomplishments” above noted, during those 50 years I was excommunicated, put on probation, disfellowshipped, divorced, remarried, convicted of sex crimes, and lost my career.  Throughout those 50 years, I never thought of myself as an addict. I just thought I was weak, a sentiment reinforced by my first wife and a Stake President.  But I am a living testament that the Lord never ceases to love us and has the power to free us from addiction.

I sat one evening about 3 years ago reflecting on the course my life had traversed. I was at peace with the Lord, and was faithfully sealed to my wife, but I continued to be plagued by images of pornography and urges to satisfy myself. As I sat in deep reflection, I quietly cried out to the Lord, Why can’t I overcome this? I had tried to overcome my moral challenges in the past, but my “poor character” always wanted to leave a little room to store the addiction. But remember, I did not recognize it as an addiction. I was just weak. However, when I cried out to the Lord on this particular occasion, I no longer wanted to give room in my life for those behaviors, but I just could not seem to get over the hump. Why can’t I overcome this? The Lord responded.

I have heard the Lord speak to me in something other than the still small voice—which is more common—3 times in my life. Twice I was in the Temple when He had something to say to me, words of reassurance, comfort and instruction. On this third occasion, He replied to my query/plea with a love and understanding that still burns in my breast. You don’t have to overcome it, the Lord said. I overcame it for you. You just have to trust me.  In that moment it was given to me to understand what it meant to surrender to the Lord. And I did. I finally gave up. I surrendered. Finally, the Lord had a lump of clay He could work with, and He change my heart. He took the addiction away. He freed me from bondage.  

It was not until I gained this freedom that I could look back and clearly recognize that I had been suffering under the weight of an undiagnosed and unrecognized addiction. There was no way on earth I would have ever found the peace I sought, the freedom I yearned for, without the Lord’s intervention. I would have died an addict had my Savior not intervened to bring me repose. I cannot explain the spiritual mechanism by which the Lord performed this miracle in my life any more than I can explain the spiritual mechanism whereby water was transformed into wine, or the faith-filled woman was healed of a nearly lifelong issue of blood. But it was every bit a miracle. I was made free.

What we should learn from this is that without the intervention of the Lord, the best result we can hope for in treating addiction is to control the behaviors driven by the addiction. But recognize that this leaves the addict in the unenviable position of having to live with that pressure on the closet door where they have put away the addiction.  True recovery and freedom from bondage comes only when the Lord changes our hearts. And He can only do that, without trespassing on our agency, if we truly want it, holding nothing back.

So, does addiction “offend” God. Of course it does, because it holds us back from fully accepting Him as our Savior. We have said to our Savior, “Oh, I can do it without You.”  Good luck. 

I appreciate your experience and have had my own experience with God helping me and directing me through recovery.    For me, and it seems for most addicts, it is not as simple miraculous intervention where God removes the addiction from us, rather I believe that God uses the addiction to take us deeper and address root issues in our lives.  For me it took decades, and I still see my addiction manifested in other ways.   Without addressing those core issues, addiction is unlikely to be miraculously healed, as seems to be the case with you.  Very few people are miraculously healed from disease or blindness, even though Christ has the power via the atonement to heal it.  Suffering is a part of life.  There are many church lessons as to why God allows us to suffer and doesn't always miraculously heal us.   Treating addiction is usually requires a multifaceted approach that takes years to rewire the brain.  God can direct us on that path if we allow Him.   I would caution at suggesting that addiction and those who are not miraculously healed are held back from fully accepting Him as our Savior. 

I always thought God was offended at my addiction.  Healing didn't start until I learned otherwise, directly from Him.  That was the miracle I saw.  I began to see God in a new healing light.  I started to see myself in a new light.  God has always been a central part of my life, but my addiction drew me even closer to Him in ways that I could have never known Him otherwise.  I feel like I am closer to God because of my addiction.  He is not offended at that.